Myrick v. Superior Court Department

94 N.E.3d 838, 479 Mass. 1012
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedApril 18, 2018
DocketSJC 12190
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 94 N.E.3d 838 (Myrick v. Superior Court Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Myrick v. Superior Court Department, 94 N.E.3d 838, 479 Mass. 1012 (Mass. 2018).

Opinion

RESCRIPT

Kyl V. Myrick appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief in the nature of mandamus. Myrick's petition sought the reversal of a Superior Court judgment dismissing a civil complaint that he had filed in that court. That complaint concerned the denial of his applications for criminal complaints in the Boston Municipal Court Department. In his petition to the single justice, Myrick also challenged the Superior Court judge's declining to recuse himself from the matter. The single justice correctly denied both the petition and Myrick's subsequent request for reconsideration.

"It would be hard to find any principle more fully established in our practice than the principle that neither mandamus nor certiorari is to be used as a substitute for ordinary appellate procedure or used at any time when there is another adequate remedy." Rines v. Justices of the Superior Court , 330 Mass. 368 , 371, 113 N.E.2d 817 (1953). See, e.g., Ardon v. Committee for Pub. Counsel Servs ., 464 Mass. 1001 , 979 N.E.2d 1093 (2012). There was, as the single justice recognized, a plainly adequate alternative remedy for Myrick to pursue after his complaint in the Superior Court was dismissed, namely, an appeal to the Appeals Court from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing the complaint. See Mass. R. A. P. 4 (a), as amended, 464 Mass. 1601 (2013). As for Myrick's claim that the Superior Court judge should have recused himself, that claim also could have been raised on appeal to the Appeals Court. See Bloise v. Bloise , 437 Mass. 1010 , 1010, 770 N.E.2d 472 (2002), citing Doten v. Plymouth Div. of the Probate & Family Court Dep't , 395 Mass. 1001 , 1001, 479 N.E.2d 130 (1985). See also Ewing v. Commonwealth , 451 Mass. 1005 , 1006, 885 N.E.2d 131 (2008).

Judgment affirmed .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In the Matter of Burnham
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2020
Miranda v. Superior Court Department
121 N.E.3d 187 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2019)
Snell v. Office of the Chief Med. Exam'r
120 N.E.3d 719 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2019)
Chawla v. Appeals Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2019
Briscoe v. LSREF3/AH Chi. Tenant, LLC.
116 N.E.3d 33 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2019)
Myrick v. Appeals Court
114 N.E.3d 973 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 N.E.3d 838, 479 Mass. 1012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myrick-v-superior-court-department-mass-2018.